Instead of taking a fanboys claims at face value.. Read the decision from Glocks protest.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/685461.pdf
Glock 19X to be introduced in January
- Thread starter jjones45
- Start date
- Status
Instead of taking a fanboys claims at face value.. Read the decision from Glocks protest.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/685461.pdf
Jeb Stuart
member
Lol, thanks for that tarosean, just goes to show the tremendous amount of misinformation that flows down the internet gauntlet and how hyperbole of one product can send out some many false claims both good and bad.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,127
Glock's Georgia plant started producing somewhere around 2009. Plenty of time to start design and tooling to get a leg up on the 380/9mm slim market. If they wanted to. Nope. Too busy doing the same thing.
Wow..4 ex-SF guys. On the internet no less. That must mean they are the real deal. I was in the military for the better part of a decade. In that time I have served with members of every type of SOCOM. Rangers, Green Berets, SEALS, even MARSOC. From all the branches I probably know 50 active and former SOCOM members. About half own Glocks but only a handful of those prefer them to Sigs, Walthers, and Berettas. So I could care less about one internet video of 4 guys showing off Glocks.
The Security 9 is an example of variety in a line up. I agree with you that innovation is hard to come up with in a handgun market. Glock has been copied by nearly every maker. And improved upon. Many people are not going to shell out $600 or more for a Glock that needs 3-500 in parts, services, or upgrades to make it "their gun." When they can buy an M&P or PPQ for less, and need less work.
James Yeager is that you?
Never said it was innovative. Called it a shocking surprise. Reading comprehension is wonderful.
Glock submitted a hack job of a firearm. They didn't even introduce anything new for the trials. And what other companies submitted 2? The Sig model is a frame swap for the M17/18. Not a new firearm. So who else entered 2? And Glock charged MORE for a firearm that any gunsmith can make with a hacksaw. The Beretta M9 beat out Glock in 1985 in endurance and reliability testing in 1985! The Beretta M9A3 didn't go farther in the trials for the same reason Glock lost, because they cost too much. And if you bothered to follow the MHS trials, the M17 does not suffer the (rare) drop safe problem the civilian version P320 does. All this Glock chest thumping you are doing is just whining that Glock lost the contract, as they should have.
Glock wasn't a competitor. Ol Gaston was still making drapery rods when Round 1 started..
Another piece of misinformation in this thread is glock didn't replace any gun, period.
They were simply added to the official toy box of options for some units.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,127
Glock didn't meet the requirements in 1985. ie was beat out by Beretta in 1985. The first Glocks were designed in 1979.
Yes. Units that have added Glocks to their inventories (like MARSOC and SEALS) have ordered relatively few firearms. Not nearly enough to fill the entire compliment of handguns plus replacements.
GunnyUSMC
Member
I always find it funny when a topic is on a certain firearm, someone that hates that firearm comes on to bash it.
Why do some people feel the need to let everyone know that they don’t like something, when no one really cares.
Now I am always open to a discussion about why one firearm is better then another or what makes one gun better then another, but just to bash something just to let everyone know how you feel is a waste of time.
This may be a new concept to some people, but you are allowed to start your own topic. You can even start one about the firearms you dislike or one that you think others should dislike. By doing this you will be able to see if anyone cares about how you feel.
Why do some people feel the need to let everyone know that they don’t like something, when no one really cares.
Now I am always open to a discussion about why one firearm is better then another or what makes one gun better then another, but just to bash something just to let everyone know how you feel is a waste of time.
This may be a new concept to some people, but you are allowed to start your own topic. You can even start one about the firearms you dislike or one that you think others should dislike. By doing this you will be able to see if anyone cares about how you feel.
helitack32f1
Member
Yes, he should instead read info from a hater that apparently hasn't actually read what he posted. I didn't read it either but did read the ending:
"In this context, the agency considered the impact of Glock’s substantially higher price and decided not to make a second award. AR, Tab 3, SSDD, at 24 (“[T]here is no correlating superior performance factor for Glock, as compared to Sig Sauer, to support paying that premium. Consequently, I cannot justify paying a price premium of over 37% for the Glock submission, even as a second award. One (1) award to Sig Sauer on Solicitation Number W15QKN-15-R-0002 represents the overall best value to the Government.”). In essence, the agency concluded that the protester was not likely to propose a competitive price during the second phase."
Price was clearly the overriding factor, despite mention of Sig having a "slight technical advantage".
helitack32f1
Member
As I understand things, Glock did not make Glocks FOR the US, IN the US until around 2012-2013. Prior to that most, if not all Glocks made in Georgia were made for export, due to the fact that Austria had very strict export laws, where they could export their US made Guns anywhere. And for the longest time, guns said to be made in the US were really just assembled in the US.
So, Mr. high on himself won't take the word of SF guys on a video because it was on the good ol' interwebs but we are supposed to accept your bonafides, doled out here, ironically on the internet? OK, I'm with you on that so, I do not believe you. I find 4 real humans in a video more believable than a random, insecure Glock hater trolling Glock threads. If you are who you say you are, you probably would not have to come in here to try and feel better about yourself.
The Security 9 is only an example of variety because Ruger has yet to find the right recipe for a truly successful 9mm hand gun, as evidenced by the fact that they have The Ruger American pistol, the SR-9 and now this. They all seem to occupy the same space, with variety in pricing. If variety like that is to be applauded then Glocks 30 or so different varieties of different calibers, sizes and types should make you ecstatic! And yeah, you're right, no one is ever gonna buy a Glock.
Yup, only one person in the world thinks the G19 is worth anything. He must be pretty rich to be able to buy enough of them to keep it in the top 5 or 6 handguns by sales each year. Well thought out response ya had there.
Why do Glock haters have to get snide and insulting when someone disagrees with them, in a thread, exclusively about a Glock gun? Better question, why do haters feel the need to enter threads about a gun they do not like? Us fanbois generally don't go trolling other gun maker threads and their new releases to tell them how stupid they are. I suspect there is some insecurity and inferiority complex issues going on with you and your fellow haters in this thread and others. So, let me rephrase what I said earlier: You seriously think Glock coming out with a copy of a gun, just like every other gun company has, would be a shocking surprise? You may have a point there, I would be shocked too if Glock lowered themselves to that level. Haters such as yourself, who usually whine about grip angle would just crow about that being Glocks admission that their grip angle was wrong all along. Though I would love to see Glock come out with a 1911 with a Glock grip angle, just to watch all the haters heads explode.
Um, if YOU bothered to follow the MHS trials, you would know that the original gun submitted by Sig had the same internals as the Sig P320 that had the issues, but it was not discovered during the trials, and they updated them soon thereafter. Also, you would know that Beretta did not enter the M9A3 in the MHS trials, they entered their APX striker fired gun. And no, the M9 did not beat the Glock, I do not believe it was even in the trial. It came down to the Beretta M9 or the Sig P226.
So, yeah, lots of misinformation going on here.
Oh, and how many other submissions were there for MHS trials besides the Glock and the Sig? Yeah, just two other guns were entered. If you don't count the other 8! Another brilliantly thought out point ya got there. So, at the very least, this innovation-free hack job of a firearm as you put it, kicked the ass of 10 other submissions, presumably submissions from other companies that you think are much better and more innovative than Glock.
Competitors
Twelve pistols were entered into the competition:[22][23]
-
: Beretta did not enter the improved M9A3, instead competing with their new APX striker-fired pistol.[22] -
: CZ P-07 MHS and P-09 MHS chambered in 9 mm NATO and .40 S&W.[22] -
: FN Herstal entered a polymer-framed, striker-fired pistol, apparently based on the FN FNS, and from which the FN 509 was developed.[23][24][25] -
: Glock 17 MHS and 19 MHS chambered in 9 mm NATO, Glock 22 MHS and 23 MHS chambered in .40 S&W, respectively.[22] -
: KRISS USA announced its entry into the program using a variant of their Sphinx SDP chambered in 9mm NATO.[26][27] -
: SIG Sauer P320 MHS, a modified version of the P320.[22] -
: Smith & Wesson M&P M2.0; in co-operation with General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems.[28] -
: STI and Detonics Defense STX.[29]
Last edited:
helitack32f1
Member
Oh, and since this is a thread about the Glock 19X and not whiny haters, here is a photo of mine.
I’m really torn about this gun. One minute I want one, the next I don’t lol. I haven’t felt this indecisive about buying a gun in a while. The more I see it though the more I want one. I plan on getting ahold of one sometime next week and that will be the tell tale of if I gotta have it or not, when I actually grip it. I thought I wanted a gen5 19, but shot one and held a couple and ultimately passed on it because it just didn’t do it for me more so than a gen4. Glocks always have a special place in my carry rotation, but lately I’ve been more interested in Cz and Hk hammer fired guns.
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
Nice, I think I want one.
Here is my prediction.
In the near future Glock will introduce another model.
It will be a Glock too.
This will upset a bunch of people and they will feel compelled to tell everyone and anyone how much they hate it.
JR24
Member
If you have hands like mine the magwell hump of the 19 grip is perfectly awkward on my pinkey, while the 17 grip fits perfect.
Even with X grip and a 17 mag, the 19 is less than Ideal for me.*
I really like the 19 slide/17 grip combo, should be about perfect for me.
*as a result I neglect my 19s and carry/shoot either a 17 (mostly) or 26 (when I need deep concealment)
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,127
I will believe people who are who they say they are. The folks I know are people I have worked with and trained with. I take their word for it because I know where many of them have been in their careers. I am not going to believe a video of 4 people on Youtube who "say" they are SF (or whatever) when I don't know them. Because frankly, there are tons of fakes in the world who claim military service and all the cool operations when they were never in or weren't there. My statement was not a "my SF friends can beat your SF friends" kind of mentality.
I think variety is a good thing for gun makers, yes. And I am not just talking size and caliber, like Glocks motif for their lineup. Us "gun people" can be pretty picky about what we like and don't. I don't like the Glock trigger. Never have. And I have tried different Glock mods to make it to something I do like. I don't like the stippling on Glocks, either in the Gen 3 or Gen 4. Don't know enough about the Gen 5 as of yet. I do like the third party support Glock enjoys. Much of what I don't like about Glock can be changed. But I am a budget minded person. I could spend $1500 on a custom Glock build to get it close to what I like. Or spend $600 or so on something I like just as much.
Couldn't resist. James Yeager is irritating. He is the epitome of loudmouth Glock fanboy. Anyone with a different idea than him is "wrong" and nothing changes that. Mr. Hawke had some interesting commentary on that guy.
I think you misunderstand me. I don't hate Glocks. I just don't prefer them or think there is anything special about them. I have owned Glocks before. Most recently I had a Glock 42 that I bought off a coworker for a very low price ($150). I figured I would try it. See if I like it enough to keep and carry, if not I can sell it at a profit. I sold it for $300 and got a PPS instead. I also used to shoot in a semi-professional university competition team using Glock 22 and 23s. I would shoot about 5000 rounds per month, much out of my own pocket. Every now and then I consider getting a Glock as an alternate carry weapon. Namely the G30S or something in 10mm. So no, I am not a Glock hater.
Sig has said all along that the M17 doesn't have the same drop safety issues as the P320.
The M9A3 was revealed on Facebook before the official MHS trials even began. Beretta hoped that the upgrade would be accepted into the trials and was denied before it even started. It was pretty pompous of Beretta to assume the A3 would be the shoe in for the MHS trial. They even gave it the military designation M9, thinking it would win.
Look at what the other companies made for the MHS trial. They took firearms they already had and modified them for the trial. And for the most part, the modifications were not something that could be done without a competent gunsmith. Companies like S&W and Sig added thumb safeties. a long standing must for Army firearms. Glock hardly changed a thing for their 19X submission. Like I said, it is no wonder why they lost. The insult to injury was Glock was going to charge them more for a cut down 17 frame and a 19 slide. Get 300 soldiers the parts and tools, they could make the 19X for cheaper than Glock was selling.
In closing, no I am not a Glock hater. If I were issued or given one, I would accept it. With mostly minimal whining (tongue in cheek). If I were still in the Army I would be okay with a Glock 19X because they are mainly a secondary firearm anyway. The M4 was my primary weapon during my time. And many of the M9s I had in the service were pretty worn out anyway.
gralewaj
Member
I am always amazed at the passion people have for firearms... for and against specific manufactures. Glock always seems to be a hot button for some. When I started shooting handguns, I did not like the Glock (Gen 2 era was available). Once I had shot a large enough sample to figure out what worked and what didn't, I ended up shooting Glocks (Gen 3 36 was the first I owned) I now have 5 Glocks and have sold that G36. I have a few other model handguns, but I end up shooting/carrying the Glock. It just works. and works well for me.
I really like the look of this pistol and the thought behind the 17/19 cross. If you remember, ITS NOT A CONCEALED CARRY GUN, it's simply brilliant. I've always wanted a G19, but the grip always felt too short. I don't like the 17 size, but the grip was perfect. This really works in my favor for this gun. Can't wait to pick mine up Monday!
I really like the look of this pistol and the thought behind the 17/19 cross. If you remember, ITS NOT A CONCEALED CARRY GUN, it's simply brilliant. I've always wanted a G19, but the grip always felt too short. I don't like the 17 size, but the grip was perfect. This really works in my favor for this gun. Can't wait to pick mine up Monday!
It seems pointless to me. There is next to zero benefit in reduction of barreI/slide length. I pass.
helitack32f1
Member
I think you will love it. People STILL cannot wrap their minds around the fact that this gun was not designed, by Glock to be some new "miracle conceal carry weapon". It was designed for the military trials and is just their civilian release of the gun, and those that still do not get that are a bit slow or aren't paying attention. However, it can be conceal carried. I have been carrying my G17 in anticipation of doing just that with the 19X and it is working well.
I have to admit that, with my carry gun being a G23 for the past 10 years, I have rarely paid attention to just how good the grip on the 17 feels in comparison. I really look forward to spending a lot of time shoving rounds through this thing. People that have actually shot it seem to love it and cannot put it down.
I hope you enjoy yours and I look forward to hearing a shooting report on it!
GunnyUSMC
Member
Ok, we understand that you don’t like it. Now you can move on and find something that makes you happy
A gun with or without a safety isn’t the same gun? Or is it just the same gun with or without the safety? Glock can’t win here and it’s obvious because people want something to complain about with glock. If glock would have offered the model with the manual safety probably more people would have complained about that than the one without the safety. Glocks stance on manual safeties on da striker fired pistols is well documented. I’m 100% sure striker fired guns with no safety outsell striker fired guns with safeties probably 10 to 1. Most of the people I know who bought the M&p m2.0 with safeties have already taken them off. The Ruger sr series is a pretty good gun with no pro (no safety) model but then Ruger makes the American with the pro model as well as the lc9S. I’m guessing the lcp2 supersized (security 9) will also be offered in the pro model soon. S&W shields first came out with safeties and then shortly after all the request to offer it without a safety there it was and I’m sure the shield sells more no thumb safety models than the one that does. I don’t care for manual safeties on striker pistols because I don’t use them and that’s just something extra I don’t need on my gun. I get people like options and people like thumb safeties, if that’s the case get you a gun that has one and stop trying to make every gun maker put manual safeties on striker fired guns. As far as the color goes I guess you didn’t see the other mhs trials guns that were submitted and the one that won. This is far from being the first gun offered in cheap mustard desert
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
Many would love to see a manual safety on a Glock.
They wouldn't buy it but rather start a whole new line of criticism, "what happened to perfection", "safe action", blah blah blah.
I think even diehard anti Glockers are getting tired of the same old lines.
They wouldn't buy it but rather start a whole new line of criticism, "what happened to perfection", "safe action", blah blah blah.
I think even diehard anti Glockers are getting tired of the same old lines.
I would not want you to have to have a thumb safety on your Glock if you don't like them, but don't really understand why you would tell me I can't have a Glock with a thumb safety. I like Glocks better than other semi autos. I just wish I had the choice of getting mine with a thumb safety. S&W makes them both ways, wish Glock would too!
GunnyUSMC
Member
He didn't say you couldn't have one. It's just that Glock doesn't offer one. He said that if you want a thumb safety , find a gun that has one.
I don't understand the need that some have for a thumb safety on every gun. Now there are guns that I would not want if they didn't have a thumb safety like the 1911 or a High Power. But this is due to the type of actions.
I have carried a Glock as a duty gun for over 15 years. I have been in very high stress situations and glad that I didn't have to worry about an extra safety.
Now I'm not saying that someone is wrong for wanting a thumb safety on a striker fire pistol. But I can tell you this, Until you are in a high stress, life or death, situation whit the gun you carry, you will not know what works best for you.
Know there may be a way to get a Glock with a thumb safety. If you can get your hands on one of the guns that were used for the Govt. testing, you would have what you want. Hell, If the price was right, I wouldn't mind have one.
T
I get it, but glock has been thumb safety-less for 30+ years and it’s kind of a broken record asking for one. More options for customers is a good thing but I don’t think glock is the least bit interested in offering thumb safeties. They would more than likely start making revolvers and 1911’s before they start offering thumbs safeties on their pistols
Yea but I don't want just any striker fired pistol with a thumb safety. I want a Glock with a thumb safety.
helitack32f1
Member
I have to agree that Glock, at the very least should offer the option of a manual safety on the 19X . At least that way, they could use the excuse that they did it to offer the public an exact rendition of their MHS entry. I do find it interesting that even Sig will not have a manual safety on their regular civilian version of the M17. They will offer a limited edition with the safety but not on the base M17.
- Status
Similar threads
